In fragile states, stabilization not synonymous with military action

The stabilization of conflict-affected areas often connotes “military action.” But it shouldn’t, development experts say. The global aid community should play a larger role in shaping international engagement in places from Iraq to Syria and beyond. U.S. President Barack Obama recently announced a strategy to counter the Islamic State group with plans that depend on new military units in Iraq and a yet-to-be developed Syrian opposition force. But countering the group will need to be accompanied by broader, lasting change in Iraq and Syria, which means better governance, stronger civil society and more political inclusivity — and elevating these goals over narrower national interests. This is where development groups can play a role, according to Michael Stanisich, who leads International Relief & Development’s stability and governance practice. Stabilization does not have to be entwined with military involvement, but it can stand alone as an effort to understand and address grievances at a very local level. Differing definitions Those working at a policy level and those implementing aid projects might define instability differently. But people living in developing countries tend to define stability similarly, Stanisich suggested, citing questions such as: Am I safe and secure? Do I have the ability to grow? Are my children going to have the opportunity to achieve something? “The only people who can tell us whether an area is unstable are the local community members we are working or attempting to work with,” Stanisich said. “Without that, you have artificial constructs.” The goal is to reach the root causes of instability by understanding the perceptions of the local populations: What are the grievances and why do those grievances exist? This is where it’s crucial for implementers to gather information from a wide swath of society. The minute there are exclusions within a society — that’s when the reality becomes “what we’re dealing with now in terms of [the Islamic State group],” Stanisich said. “If electricity goes out in my house, my recourse is going to the breaker box and checking to see if that switch works or not. If that doesn’t work, I don’t know what the cause is. So I have to pull in more sources to help inform me,” he said, adding the same goes for pulling from multiple sources to gauge grievances. Local hires, local perceptions International development groups like IRD are relying increasingly on locally or regionally hired employees to implement field projects. Expats may run programs and facilitate management in areas without demonstrated local capacity. In fragile or conflict-ridden states, engaging local leaders in project planning activities is particularly important, Stanisich suggested. “Our developmental dollars are top-down and planning takes place at higher levels, but when talking about stabilization, it’s very, very local,” he said. The local government, national government and the people who intervene on behalf of third parties like local nongovernmental organizations — those are the opinions that matter in these types of situations, he said. By working through local team members and networks, development groups can collect and triangulate information more effectively. In the specific case of Iraq, IRD’s long tenure of program implementation enables the group to remain connected to the communities even during challenging times, Stanisich said. The question, he added, is how to structure programs with enough flexibility to empower people who are working with support of foreign donors like the United States, which means going into difficult-to-access regions to gather what is driving grievances, and building locally driven programs and activities that make sense — certainly not an easy feat in conflict areas like Iraq and Syria. It also means identifying resiliencies already present within a community. Is there a community leader that people mobilize around? A statue in the community that represents beliefs binding people together? As practitioners, identifying that common ground and enabling the local community to leverage leaders or meeting places to further discussions can be an invaluable tool. There have been attempts to create the tools to train U.S. Agency for International Development employees on how to identify grievances or instability at the local level, and they’re ongoing, but no two organizations think alike, Stanisich noted. He pointed to the district stability framework USAID implementers and military units use in conflict-affected states like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and South Sudan. The framework received negative attention, too, he said, but “I haven’t seen a lot of [similar] tools come out … that looks at ways in which we analyze our environment and how we deduce what’s driving instability in the area. “It’s flawed and needs tuning, but I thought it was a strong first attempt for identifying root causes,” Stanisich said. In the meantime, it’s important to tailor interventions that counter extreme behaviors in the short term while pulling the information into midterm program planning efforts. “Incubating” nascent civil society groups or activists outside of the active conflict zones, for example, can increase the likelihood that “we’ll have a much richer understanding of the current local dynamics while building the capacity and increasing the likelihood of grass-roots engagement and mobilization upon their return,” Stanisich said. Check out more insights and analysis provided to hundreds of Executive Members worldwide, and subscribe to the Development Insider to receive the latest news, trends and policies that influence your organization.